A STATEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL SOUTHERN BAPTIST UNDERSTANDING OF GOD’S PLAN OF SALVATION

(Written by Dr. Eric Hankins. See a list of Southern Baptist professors, pastors and theologians who have signed this statement HERE and the ever growing list of other biblical scholars who affirm the non-Calvinistic interpretation of the scriptures in the comment section below.)

Preamble

Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry. The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists. This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusivelyCalvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.

While Calvinists have been present in Southern Baptist life from its earliest days and have made very important contributions to our history and theology, the majority of Southern Baptists do not embrace Calvinism. Even the minority of Southern Baptists who have identified themselves as Calvinists generally modify its teachings in order to mitigate certain unacceptable conclusions (e.g., anti-missionism, hyper-Calvinism, double predestination, limited atonement, etc.). The very fact that there is a plurality of views on Calvinism designed to deal with these weaknesses (variously described as “3-point,” “4-point,” “moderate,” etc.) would seem to call for circumspection and humility with respect to the system and to those who disagree with it.

For the most part, Southern Baptists have been glad to relegate disagreements over Calvinism to secondary status along with other important but “non-essential” theological matters. The Southern Baptist majority has fellowshipped happily with its Calvinist brethren while kindly resisting Calvinism itself. And, to their credit, most Southern Baptist Calvinists have not demanded the adoption of their view as the standard. We would be fine if this consensus continued, but some New Calvinists seem to be pushing for a radical alteration of this longstanding arrangement.

We propose that what most Southern Baptists believe about salvation can rightly be called “Traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology, which should be understood in distinction to “Calvinist” soteriology. Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is articulated in a general way in the Baptist Faith and Message, “Article IV.” While some earlier Baptist confessions were shaped by Calvinism, the clear trajectory of the BF&M since 1925 is away from Calvinism. For almost a century, Southern Baptists have found that a sound, biblical soteriology can be taught, maintained, and defended without subscribing to Calvinism. Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is grounded in the conviction that every person can and must be saved by a personal and free decision to respond to the Gospel by trusting in Christ Jesus alone as Savior and Lord. Without ascribing to Calvinism, Southern Baptists have reached around the world with the Gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. Baptists have been well-served by a straightforward soteriology rooted in the fact that Christ is willing and able to save any and every sinner.

New Calvinism presents us with a duty and an opportunity to more carefully express what is generally believed by Southern Baptists about salvation. It is no longer helpful to identify ourselves by how many points of convergence we have with Calvinism. While we are not insisting that every Southern Baptist affirm the soteriological statement below in order to have a place in the Southern Baptist family, we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists and that they do not want Calvinism to become the standard view in Southern Baptist life. We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.

Below is what we believe to be the essence of a “Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” We believe that most Southern Baptists, regardless of how they have described their personal understanding of the doctrine of salvation, will find the following statement consistent with what the Bible teaches and what Southern Baptists have generally believed about the nature of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

ARTICLE ONE: THE GOSPEL

We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved.

We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.

ARTICLE TWO: THE SINFULNESS OF MAN

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty (?) before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.

ARTICLE THREE: THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST

We affirm that the penal substitution of Christ is the only available and effective sacrifice for the sins of every person.

We deny that this atonement results in salvation without a person’s free response of repentance and faith. We deny that God imposes or withholds this atonement without respect to an act of the person’s free will. We deny that Christ died only for the sins of those who will be saved.

ARTICLE FOUR: THE GRACE OF GOD

We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith.

We deny that grace negates the necessity of a free response of faith or that it cannot be resisted. We deny that the response of faith is in any way a meritorious work that earns salvation.

ARTICLE FIVE: THE REGENERATION OF THE SINNER

We affirm that any person who responds to the Gospel with repentance and faith is born again through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is a new creation in Christ and enters, at the moment he believes, into eternal life.

We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.

ARTICLE EIGHT: THE FREE WILL OF MAN

We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.

We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.

ARTICLE NINE: THE SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER

We affirm that when a person responds in faith to the Gospel, God promises to complete the process of salvation in the believer into eternity. This process begins with justification, whereby the sinner is immediately acquitted of all sin and granted peace with God; continues in sanctification, whereby the saved are progressively conformed to the image of Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit; and concludes in glorification, whereby the saint enjoys life with Christ in heaven forever.

We deny that this Holy Spirit-sealed relationship can ever be broken. We deny even the possibility of apostasy.

ARTICLE TEN: THE GREAT COMMISSION

We affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned His church to preach the good news of salvation to all people to the ends of the earth. We affirm that the proclamation of the Gospel is God’s means of bringing any person to salvation.

We deny that salvation is possible outside of a faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Loraine Boettner, a respected Calvinistic Historian and Theologian, wrote “It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God’s absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out hisown salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect.”

So, even by Calvinistic scholars own admission the Earliest Church Fathers did not teach the Calvinistic view of election, but in fact taught “the absolute freedom of the human will…a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will.” These Early Church Fathers include:

Some have asked if I recommend any particular study Bibles. I have not vetted any one fully but I have enjoyed The Peoples New Testament with Explanatory Notes – One Volume Edition (2 volumes in 1) [Hardcover] B.W. Johnson (ISBN-13: 978-0892251414, ISBN-10: 0892251417)

Share this:

Like this:

47 thoughts on “Our Beliefs”

I have began compiling a list of scholars in this field who have rejected the Calvinistic interpretation of the scriptures for benefit of those who may be interested. Not all of these scholars are Baptist obviously, but they all have credentials as scholars on this subject:

I have many FF Bruce(brethren) commentaries and he could be added to this list.
also there is also George E. Ladd(baptist), Oliver B. Greene( baptist), H.A. Ironside(brethren), David Stern (messianic Jew)(the complete Jewish bible).and Spiros Zodhiates (hebrew greek key study bible). These men all support the free will response of the sinner through the gospel.They all reject the notion man has no free will to accept Christ or that God predestines anyone to believe or anyone to hell.

I had thought that you were Arminian in your theology but this statement of faith denies the possibility of apostasy. This has been the one sticking point for me with Arminian theology. I thought I had settled on the Baptist statement of faith as posted above, but after reading Forlines began to feel convinced I was wrong. Do you have any thoughts on this, posts, or resources you can point me to?

First, the article titled “why did you choose Christ” touches on this. We don’t believe a LFW choice is “uncaused” as Frame paints it. We believe in agent causation. The cause of a choice is the chooser and if that seems incoherent then so is Gods choice to create you and save you.

To say LFW is coherent because God has LFW lacks depth of thought. God is eternal and infinite. And possibly outside of time. God is the Uncaused Cause. These attributes are inexplicable! But there is a comparison that we can understand. God can not sin. Therefore if LFW demands the ability to sin then God does not have LFW.

Here is a quote from Ligon Duncan that you might find interesting:

“The Church Fathers…lived in a time when Stoic and Manichian and other types of determinism where dominate in the philosophical world of the day. In other words, there was an impersonal fatalism that was dominating large swaths of philosophy in their own time. And in reaction to that fatalism—that impersonal determinism—what do you think they stressed? Free will! Now they mean absolutely nothing like what Arminius will mean sixteen centuries later. Or even what high medieval Roman Catholicism will mean. And they are rightly reacting against something that is unbiblical, because determinism is unbiblical.”

If you affirm that God has knowledge of and sovereignty over the fate of every person, is He not effectively ordaining the eternal condemnation of those who choose to reject Him through His very choice to create them? It seems to me that to affirm God’s omniscience and omnipotence is to affirm the Calvinist’s position on predestination. The distinction between your position and theirs seems to boil down to semantics. Every time I wrestle with the fate of the unrepentant, I either end up feeling like God is ultimately evil and vain (creating beings He has condemned to hell while demanding their worship) or He isn’t God at all (not omniscient or not omnipotent). I was an atheist for most of my life, then a Christian, but now I find myself an unwilling agnostic or pr maybe an atheist again, and all my unbelief stems from my inability to resolve this question. I feel like I desperately want to believe. Please help me understand where I have got this wrong!

I’m not sure which, but a leighton discussed this on a certain podcast. I had the same problem. In fact I used to believe the bible taught Calvinism and that God was causing my doubts and unbelief and chose me for hell. Awesomely I do not believe that anymore!! My unbelief was from me not God.
i think of us Humans as like bubbles in the water of God. God is sovereign and he being God made us able to make real choices either obeying or disobeying God. Just because He knows what choices we will make does not mean He predestined those choices. He knew before he made us, that making us free to choose would result in Jesus on the cross. It seems from the Bible that He wants a real response that He doesn’t force.

I would recommend to anyone who truly wants to learn the truth as it is in Jesus, that they would FIRST study the “theology” of the Word of God; for “theology” is simply the ‘study of GOD.’ Then after that, study what the Scriptures says about man and his sin. Whenever the diligent believer grasps even just a little of what the Scriptures teach with respect to these 2 subjects, you’ll began to understand the glorious truths of God’s Free and Sovereign Grace. But be very careful: DON’T try to put God in what man teaches according to the systems that man has; ALWAYS prove man’s systems by God’s Word; and never be afraid that if you learn something different from what you been taught by the church or denomination you belong to, to reject anything that contradicts God’s Word. Keep this verse in mind as you study: “You thought that I was altogether such an one as yourself: but I will reprove you, and set them in order before your eyes” (Psalm 50:21). Besides, He also says: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” says JEHOVAH. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8,9). God bless you and His Spirit “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). Amen.

Dr Flowers .. I think you might find your “ancestors” as “stepchildren of the reformers!” Leonard Verduin wrote a book “the reformers and their stepchildren.” The stepchildren were those who broke away from the Reform tradition for various reasons — one was believer’s baptism. They were rejected as rebaptizers — Weidertaufer! There were others who met in secret away from the state church, those who believed that they ought to live a Christian life if they were saved, etc. It is a very engaging book.

Thank you for your open and honest work in these issues, especially in regard to how first century and the patristics thought.

I do have one question: What is your understanding of “progressive revelation” or better yet, just “progressive learning” about how to understand/interpret the scriptures aright. For example: could it be the God used Augustine to discover some very important biblical truths that were not discovered yet before him? There is a strong argument for “earlier the better” as NT Wright and others help us think about……but that does not mean “the earlier the better” is absolutely always right and best. The Patristics has some wrong theology too. Where does earlier the better or later the better start and end or is correct or wrong?? Wow, now we’re getting into religio-historical philosophy….ouch.

I see you list Robert Shank as one of many respected biblical scholars who reject Calvinism. Have you read “Life in the Son” by Robert Shank. I am not a Calvinist and am not convinced of the OSAS position. Shank was a Southern Baptist who came to reject the OSAS position after doing an exhaustive study of it. Just curious if you’ve read “Life in the Son” and if so, what are your thoughts on it? Just stumbled across your FB page and this website. Well done, brother. Thank you.

Leighton, Why is the doctrine of the Judgment Seat of Christ missing from SBC circles (Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:10-15; 9:24-27; 2 Cor 5:10)? This doctrine clears up many of the passages that Calvinists often use to “prove” that any work done by the Christian is “of God” and if works are absent, the person was “never really saved” (ala Thomas Schreiner). Thanks for your ministry and I am a big fan of the book!

I would like to add several scholars to your list who are not Calvinist and also not Arminian in their theology. These men are truly students of the Word and traditionalist. These would include Zane Hodges, Dr. Robert Wilkin, Shawn Lazar, C. Gordon Olson, Dr. Anthony Badger, Dr. Laurence Vance, Dave Hunt, and Charles Bing.

Would you mind doing an article on the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart? I just recently read an essay where someone said that “that the Bible clearly states that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart after each plague.” That’s not what I read in any of my Bibles. In the Bible versions that I have read it said that Pharaoh’s hardened his own heart, then God respected his choice and hardened Pharaoh’s heart as judgement. I agree with you that if Pharaoh had no choice, then why did God hold him accountable?
Thanks for your answer in this matter.

I recently watched your podcast from Feb. 15, 2017 entitled “Can you lose your Salvation? Traditionalism, Calvinism and Arminianism.” I made the following comment:

I have several questions about and objections to your reasons, Dr. Flowers, for believing that a person could not forfeit their salvation by turning from Christ after having genuinely trusted in him and, therefore, having been born from above. I hope that you will see this comment and be able to answer. I tend to agree with Dr. Brown (and John Wesley) on this point, although I cannot be absolutely certain about it and have some questions about that view, as well. First, you said that someone who has been born (again) cannot be unborn. My answer is that a person cannot be unborn, but he can die. Adam was a son of God. However, he died because of his rebellion, and death passed onto us all as a result. Why then after a person has been reborn could he not die again by returning to a state of rebellion against God? The prodigal son was a son, but his father said that he was dead (because he left the father) until he returned to the father in humble repentance. Jude verse 12 states about certain people that, “These are…trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots…” Notice that they are twice dead (and they aren’t physically dead yet). Also, notice that their fruit withers (or has withered?) and now they no longer have any fruit. They had roots but became “plucked up.” This fact would seem to indicate that a person can have the fruit of the new birth but that it can wither and die and they will no longer bear fruit. I have more questions/objections, but think I had better address them later.﻿

“We deny even the possibility of apostasy.” I think you’d better not deny the possibility of falling away (apostasia) since the Bible speaks about it. I don’t think you want to deny something that the Bible teaches. You may understand it differently than someone else, but you can’t deny that the Bible talks about apostasy. II Thess. 2:3 is one example: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away (apostasy) first.”